Canada May Expel US Ambassador Re His Remarks About Canada!

[QualityIsJobOne]

From CBC News www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/26/libscellucci030326

[gcutler]

Was the link accurate in that the Embassador said only that he disagreed with Canada's stance on the US Iraq policy and there would be short term consequences???

If so he said nothing insulting or anything out of term, IMHO.

[Bogy]

Obviously the Bush Administration has found an Ambassador to ably represent the famed Bush diplomacy to Canada. :rolleyes:

[James_F]

Dubbya only puts smrt people in positions of power...

[GoWFO]

Personally I'm embarrassed by my government's lack of support for Bush & USA's stance on Iraq. :(

[Jack White]

Originally posted by GoWFO
Personally I'm embarrassed by my government's lack of support for Bush & USA's stance on Iraq. :(

You might give some consideration to going to Israel on your next vacation, it's the MOST pro war country in the world right now.
Here's the list of most pro war against Iraq countries by rank.
1: Israel

2: USA

3: UK

4: Kuwait

Canada's would be like number 150 or 200 on this list.
I think Canada should join the EU and the UK should officially join North America :lol:

Hey why can't it happen, the Orlando Magic was once in the Western Conference, so what's the difference between this and that?

[jrjcd]

since i can't flame anyone, i won't mention what an assinine remark that is...oh well...

[Mark Lamutt]

Agreed...(jrcd(jack), not Jack).

[raj2001]

Originally posted by GoWFO
Personally I'm embarrassed by my government's lack of support for Bush & USA's stance on Iraq. :(

You should be proud, as a Canadian, that your Government prefers diplomacy over haste.

[TNGTony]

Diplomacy....You know it SOUNDS good. But after 13 years, don't you think it ran its course? How much more time? How many more resolutions?

I know people get tired of comparisons to WW2...but if you remember, Chaimberlain was a fantastic Diplomat. He had more treaties and areements with the German Government than you could shake a stick at! None of them stopped the German government from continuing to build up even though it WAS against the Treaty of Versailles. No one did anything.

The U.S. and the Japanese government had strained diplomatic relations in the 20's and 30's. The ended up signing many treaties and agreements and accords. Once the Japanese invaded Manchuria, the US continued to try diplomatically to stop the Japanese agression which threatend the Phillipines (then part o the US) and the entire far east. After an oil embargo was enorced by the US against Japan in the very late 30's (or 1940), diplomacy ruled. The US and Japan continued to talk about peaceful resolutions until a date which shall live in infamy.

During the late 40's the US, South Korea, China and about 50 other countries argued about the state of the Korean Penninsula. Diplomacy was king! The U.N. tried flexing its new muscles to try and settle the "Korean question". After a few years of diplomacy the North Koreans invaded the south.

In 1963, it wasn't Diplomacy that stopped Khruschev dead in his tracks. It was the threat of anihilation! Eventually a diplomatic deal was struck, but what kept the missiles out of Cuba wasn't the deal, it was naval ships and several thousand ICBMs and the threat to use them that turned the ships.

Yes. Diplomacy has its place and problems should be resolved diplomatically whn possible. But BOTH SIDES have to be willing to follow the same path or it's just so much hot air. And I am just astounded at how many people don't quite understand this.

See ya
Tony

[Karl Foster]

Originally posted by TNGTony

Yes. Diplomacy has its place and problems should be resolved diplomatically whn possible. But BOTH SIDES have to be willing to follow the same path or it's just so much hot air. And I am just astounded at how many people don't quite understand this.

See ya
Tony

Bravo, Tony! At some point failed diplomacy has to end with a line drawn in the sand.

[xxxx]

Originally posted by TNGTony
Diplomacy....You know it SOUNDS good. But after 13 years, don't you think it ran its course? How much more time? How many more resolutions?


Some people just don't seem to understand, Bush Jr wouldn't listen to his old man. Now he's seeing that the reality - the "Empire, standing alone, is weak". He continues on his path to destroy the remaining moral authority that America had.

His misjudgements are coming to light daily

Militarily - Powell was right, Rumsfield and his clan were wrong. Look for an immediate troop buildup and a long war costing $500B or so - who knows how many lives.

This will lead to a wrecked American economy - the biggest deficits in history.

He thought that he could control America's colonies - Canada and Mexico - by threats of economic retaliation and border closings. But guess what - Canada and Mexico buy 36% of American exports and supply 37% of America's energy requirements. Just like America can close down their economies; Canada and Mexico by working together can do the same to the US.

Just like FDR helped Canada's WWWII war effort with as much as he could get away with on the sly for the 3 years before Pearl Harbor; the Canadian government was doing the same. More help than the sum of 43 of America's coalition partners. So what was the purpose of Cellucci's sermon from the mount.

But Bush, the ultimate bull in a china shop, will now be forced to cancel his trip to Ottawa in May. America cannot afford the images of the vast demonstrations that would occur in Ottawa to be shown around the world.

Tony Blair is meeting with Bush today. The central purpose of this meeting, from the British side, is a strong message to Bush. The cost of continuing Brit support requires a 100% commitment to solving the Israeli/Palestine issue; regardless of the changes to the US support of Israel.

Dealing with democracies is a real pain for any empire leader.

[Bogy]

Nice post xxxx.

Diplomacy isn't limited to how you deal with your enemy. It is also how you deal with your friends and potential allies. Now, even our best friends and allies, the British, are feeling neglected because all the rebuilding contracts are going to U.S. companies. I listened to part of the news conference a little earlier this morning, and I hope that Bush starts listening to Blair sometime soon. Mr. Blair has multiple times the diplomatic skill and awareness than Mr. Bush has.

[waydwolf]

Originally posted by xxxx



Dealing with democracies is a real pain for any empire leader.

Iraq is not now nor has it ever been anything remotely like a democracy. Nazi Germany was not a democracy. Imperial Japan was not a democracy. North Korea is not a democracy.

Dealing with democracies may be like herding epileptic hyperactive rabbits hopped up on amphetamines, but you generally don't have to go to war against them.

If anything democracies are endlessly forced to go to war against non-democracies which in their fear of losing their grip on power will endlessly try to advance what remains of it at any cost. We who can vote our governments in and out are not all as cowardly as some of the people of the EU and Canada and Russia, and as long as we have the backbone we will save the others who snivel about diplomacy.

Tony was absolutely right.

[Bogy]

I don't think xxxx was talking about Iraq being hard to deal with as a democracy. He was talking about the U.S., Britain, Canada, Mexico, Israel and others like that. The resolutions that Bush keeps sending to Congress keep asking for complete and absolute control. His problem is that a few un-Patriotically Correct Republicans and Democrats once in a while question this.

[toenail]

The following article should be a reminder that this was all brewing strongly well before 9/11. And, America's willingness to go it alone against Iraq was also pronounced well before 9/11:

President rallies domestic support for strike at Iraq

arabicnews


Iraq, International, 2/17/2001
Even while insisting that the US is exhausting diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the current Iraqi crisis, the President spoke at the Pentagon in an effort to drum up domestic support for possible US military strikes against Iraq.
The President said the US stands in opposition to the "reckless acts of outlaw nations" and an "unholy axis" of terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime. While the US would greatly prefer a diplomatic solution to the crisis, the President reiterated that the US is ready to use force.
"There can be no dilution" of "the essence" of the UN resolutions, which call for unfettered access, he said. He said that a solution must meet a "clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard," which is the "free, full, unfettered access" to disputed "presidential sites" in Iraq, access the US has repeatedly called for. "We seek to finish the job" of the UN weapons inspectors, the President said.
He admitted that the potential military strikes, which have met with widespread international opposition, would not destroy Iraq's capacity to create weapons of mass destruction, they would, "seriously reduce his [Saddam Hussein's] capacity to threaten his neighbors." He said the strikes would leave Saddam Hussein "worse off" than he is now.
The US Vice-President, also present, said the US is "working around the clock to pursue a possible diplomatic solution to the crisis," but warned "When it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one."
The President added that Iraq had repeatedly submitted evaluations of its weapons that were refused by UNSCOM, including six declarations on biological weapons and four on nuclear weapons. He said that when Iraqi reports of weapons capacities were disproven, the Iraqis simply amended the old reports in light of the new evidence. He also said that UNSCOM was effective, although the Iraqis tried to place "debilitating conditions" on their work.
Iraq has called UNSCOM's impartiality and professionalism into question and has proposed an offer -- which the US rejected -- that special teams be formulated by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to inspect the presidential sites for a period of two months. The teams could include UNSCOM members.
"Force can never be the first answer, but sometimes it's the only answer," the President said.

emphasis added

Edit: Hehe-- actually the President quoted is Clinton, the VP is Gore, and the article is from 1998. Just indicates how things haven't changed much. Also indicates that perhaps, had Clinton been permitted to stay on, or if Gore had won, we might be in the same situation we're in now.

[RichW]

"The President said the US stands in opposition to the "reckless acts of outlaw nations" and an "unholy axis" of terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime. "

Its about time someone came out against the Reagan administration!

[Bogy]

Originally posted by RichW
"The President said the US stands in opposition to the "reckless acts of outlaw nations" and an "unholy axis" of terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime. "

Its about time someone came out against the Reagan administration! Rich, as a former Republican who got shoved out of the "big tent" myself, are you sure you're still a Republican? :lol: